Share this

Amitai EtzioniUniversity Professor and Professor of International Affairs, GW University :

Obama is in trouble, among other reasons, because there are thousands of voices out there dumping on the health bill, and we hear by and large only one voice defending it. Where is the cabinet? The VP? The elected Democrats who truely believe in it? I do not recall a more one sided debate, since I heard one hand clapping.

I also asked Arena contributors their thoughts on a provocative piece in the WSJ by Norman Podhoretz, headlined, "In defense of Sarah Palin", in which the famed neo-conservative asks: "how do we explain the hostility to Mrs. Palin felt by so many conservative intellectuals?"

"Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan."

Sarah Palin is not stupid. She's street. And there is no place for a smart, non-deferential woman from the street in elite White political culture. Black culture is more familiar with the man or woman from the street who is street smart and able to articulate the concerns of the masses.

The distance between the elite and the street has always been shorter in the Black experience. And since the Watts riot of 1965, no less than the Great Migration from the South to the North during World War I, the Black middle class has known that the street can rise up and fundamentally change the political calculus of everyday life for the Black elite, in an instant or a decade.

But in White power circles, a street person is usually seen as a threat, something usually called "Black Power" or, in this case, "Right Wing Populism." What's interesting about Norman Podhoretz's commentary about conservative disdain for Sarah Palin is that it unintentionally shows what everyone else knows--that Washington based political conservatives and liberals belong to the same class.

And they share the same class attitude towards her--or anyone-- who enters the mainstream without having gone through the vetting of its establishment. This is particularly true for Sarah Palin because she is a woman. Think about it: when John McCain selected her as his running mate, in his Hail Mary Pass move to save his failing presidential bid, he passed over legions of Republican women who had patiently paid their dues to a national--and male--political establishment that demanded of them a deference it did not extract from men. The anger over her selection in that crowd of women, which included the likes of Peggy Noonan, was palpable. This is perhaps one of the reasons that in some polls, Sarah Palin gets better approval numbers from men than women. Of course, Sarah Palin brings something else from the street that attracts men--she is sexy. But sexiness from a woman in politics is often viewed as dangerous.

As for the comparison with Reagan, that seems a bit of a stretch to me, even though both Reagan were and Palin are media savvy and telegenic. And yes, they were and remain in some respects outsiders to the Washington political establishment.

But Reagan emerged from the Hollywood elite with skills and connections at a different level than Palin's. And he was also politically experienced in a way that Palin, who resigned her governorship, is not. No matter how critical one wants to be of Reagan's governorship of California, and there was much that was downright mean, Reagan actually had some accomplishments during the two terms that he finished(!), one of which Podhoretz mentions: the saving of taxpayer's money by changing the type of folders used for storing the state's files.

That tells you something about Reagan--he was interested in policy changes, however small, that advanced his goals, and he could connect the one to the other. I don't see that kind of tolerance for the minutiae of government in Palin.

Interestingly, Podhoretz was "nonplussed" about Reagan's money-saving file folder innovation, which tells us a lot about Podhoretz: by pooh-poohing Reagan's satisfaction with such innovation, Podhoretz exudes an elite intellectual's snobbishness towards the nuts and bolts of administration that are key to reform of government. Moreover, Reagan possessed a magnanimity of personality that has yet to surface in Sarah Palin's public appearances. As polarizing as Reagan was, he tried to find ways to ameliorate that effect and create, even as an illusion, the perception that his was a big tent that everyone, as long as they agreed with him, could find a place in. Barack Obama may be a polarizing president, now; but he wasn't polarizing as a candidate. Neither was John McCain on the road to winning the Republican nomination. Palin is polarizing before running for president and without a hint of willingness to ameliorate her views to make herself more appealing to a larger swath of the American electorate. In that sense, she is the perfect foil for get-along-America--she is the new American Eve.

Two years prior to my going on-camera for ABC News, I spent most of the year following the presidential campaign for delegates beginning with Iowa and ending with California. During that period I got to see Ronald Reagan at event after event and spend about 15 minutes chatting with him "off the record," during a flight to San Diego. Prior to the GOP convention I circulated a memo advising colleagues that hysterical liberal fears about Reagan--his freckles super-hawkish view of the Soviets, his palsied fingers resting on the button--were greatly exaggerated. The man, after all, had been a consensus builder as governor of California, a prudent but still generous man when budget-time drew near, a man who quieted his verbal assaults on student protesters when they quieted their assaults against him.

I wish I could feel the same way about Sarah Palin. But alas, I can't .I see nothing in her of Reagan's combination of steely iron willl on matters of principal and tactical flexibility. Rather in Palin I see the combination of passable political skill coupled with gaps of knowledge so profound as to greatly increase my anxiety as to what havoc a Palin presidency might wreak. She may deliver her lines well, but what are the well-springs of her thoughts on a variety of domestic and international issues far beyond her training and experience. How much confidence would our friends in NATO repose in her judgment?

One is slow to reject Norman Podhoretz' judgment.Along with the late Irving Kristol his has been among the most influential American voices of the past half-century. Like most conservatives, including this one, Podhoretz is searching for a candidate able to rally conservatives set back on their heels by the failures of the Bush 2 presidency, the calamity of Iraq and the economic collapse of the final Bush days in office.None of this sustains a move for a Palin presidency. At this point her appeal seems to me to the Tea Party crowd plus pros who think they could mold her in their image. That's a long shot, and deserves to be.

Before becoming the GOP nominee in 1980, some conservatives wondered whether Ronald Reagan was up to being “another Goldwater.” Before the Arizonan was nominated in 1964, some wondered if he could fill the shoes of conservatives’ first heart throb, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio.

Palin need not worry about the comparison to Reagan. His placed in history is secure as hers is as the first women to run for vice president on a Republican ticket. And for Governor Palin, her story is still unfolding. Because she still has a role, still has a story to tell, this in and of itself makes her a threat to the establishment, just as Goldwater and Reagan once were.

Having becoming American icons and thus unassailable, the liberal intelligentsia---since their efforts to destroy the Arizonan and the Californian failed---have recently tried to recast them as liberals, just as they did with that old Cold Warrior, John Kennedy. The American Left can’t stand being wrong and if the legacies of Goldwater, JFK and Reagan were left unmolested, it would mean they were and are wrong about everything. So they have tried to rewrite history and send the truth down the Memory Hole. In similar fashion, they must destroy Palin, the Tea Party movement and anyone who stands in their way.

A year ago, “Common Sense” Americans scratched their heads when their new president went on national television and told them and the slobbering elites that he inherited a large national debt and the only way to shrink it was to grow it. The real intellectuals of America---the uncommon men and women of this country---said in reply, “that doesn’t make any sense” while the elites fairly wet themselves or found themselves joyously crying about the exciting feelings in their limbs.

The good news for Palin is the power of the modern liberal media estate has shrunk and opportunities are available to her that never were for Barry or the Gipper. The better news is that as Americans come to have less and less regard or respect for Washington, they are coming to have more and more regard for themselves, their communities and their states.

Unwittingly, President Obama has given a great gift to his fellow Americans. For the past year, this country has had a national debate on the relationship of man to the state. Reagan forced this same debate to his and the benefit of the American people. This president---Obama, and his philosophy---are on the losing side of this argument.

The vast majority of Americans knows that freedom works because it is practical. Collectivism does not work because it is not practical.

Three cheers for Norman Podhoretz – and for Sarah Palin! That John McCain, whose close associates, and much of the media, threw her under the bus following the 2008 election, now is depending on her to help him turn back a primary challenge shows her political skills are as good as they get. It would not shock me if – assuming she runs in 2012 – she carries the Iowa caucuses, ekes out a New Hampshire victory, manages duel slam-dunks in South Carolina and Florida, and follows up with a win in Michigan fueled by a moose-hunting tour in the state’s back-country and the GOP nomination.

Whether she would then be the Republicans’ new Ronald Reagan, triumphing over weak incumbent Obama, or their Barry Goldwater, suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of a now-seasoned president, remains to be seen. But hether she can govern is another question, and given her limited experience, a valid one. Reagan’s management style – appoint good people, point them in the right direction, then appeal directly to the voters on behalf of his policies – is probably one that Palin could manage quite nicely. In any case, the GOP – and the rest of the nation – had better hope she can govern, because she has a shot at the top job.

To complete Norman Podhoretz's thought in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "I knew Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan was a friend of mine. Governor Palin, you're no Ron Reagan -- but I like you all the same." And that distinguishes Podhoretz from those "conservative intellectuals" whose antipathy to Sarah Palin and "the loathsome Tea Party rabble" is ultimately explained, he believes, by "the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers."

To be sure, that "class bias" explains a good measure of the hostility Mrs. Palin has faced, especially among that often diverse band called neoconservatives. For like their counterparts on the left, most neoconservatives find their roots in progressivism, not in limited government classical liberalism, and hence in the idea that society should be "run" by elites trained at the "best schools" -- the difference being that in engineering society the neoconservatives march to different drummers than modern liberals. Both camps have greater faith in government than does "the common man," who is distrusted by both camps (not always without reason), although Podhoretz seems more trustful than most in his band.

Where he errs, I believe, is in his too breezy comparison of Palin to Reagan. There are similarities of course -- especially in the reactions of elites to both, on which his essay dwells -- the most important of which is that both show a certain common sense approach to the world and to public affairs. Their intuitions seem sound, that is. But it takes more than sound intuition to be a successful president. Ronald Reagan was always underestimated. Unlike so many of his elite critics, left and right, he came from humble beginnings, but he was an autodidact his whole life. He read and understood economists, political theorists, historians, and biographers. That knowledge, coupled with a wealth of experience, including two successful terms as governor of the nation's largest state, distinguishes him from Mrs. Palin. Both have that common sense that enables them to speak to "the common man," but the similarity ends there.

Perhaps Mrs. Palin will find the life she has carved out since leaving the governorship of Alaska will be attractive enough to encourage her to continue in it. My sense, however, is that the millions of Americans who today are deeply troubled by the direction the country is taking under the Obama administration are still looking for candidates who combine the understanding, the common sense, and the humility that Ronald Reagan so clearly embodied.

The real question is whether Sarah Palin can win a presidential campaign in 2012 or whether she will just be a thorn in the side of the political establishment.

The comparison to Ronald Reagan seems reasonable. No one in DC took him seriously as a presidential candidate until he won the 1980 presidential election. Can Sarah Palin replicate Reagan's success in 2012? I doubt it.

Barack Obama is a much more charismatic candidate than Jimmy Carter was. In 1980, we were in a midst of a bad recession but I suspect, the economy will be in much better shape in 2012 than it is now or was in 1980.

I don't even think that Sarah Palin will run for President in 2012. If she was running for President, I suspect she would have went to work at CNN instead of FOX. She isn't even doing the foreign travel that a presidential candidate with weak foreign policy creditials would be doing now.

Former Governor Palin now enjoys the best of both worlds. She just signed an $8 million TV deal with The Discovery Channel and she is making a lot of money. She is also very influential as the darling of the Tea Party movement. A race for President would only cramp her style.

It came as no surprise to me that the liberal intelligentsia was so quick to dismiss Sarah Palin as "unworthy" of their consideration. Such as been their way as far back as Coolidge-an exceptionally well read and intelligent president by the way.

"How can they tell?" Mrs. Sinclair ("Babbitt") Lewis (better known as "Dorothy Parker") inquired after learning that Coolidge had died. (Now THERE is a case of "compassionate liberalism" at work!) Ike, it was said could not read when his lips were chapped. In "Good Morning Vietnam," actor Robin Williams likened the mastermind of "D" Day to the cartoon character Elmer Fudd. Ford, of course, could not walk and chew gum at the same time. There was the joke about the fire in Agnew's library that destroyed both of his books, including the one he had not finished coloring. Quayle, in spite of an impressive record as a freshman Senator (far superior to that of Obama's) was a dope and Reagan, as Clark Clifford assured us, was an amiable dunce. And then there was George W. Bush...

One would think that by now even the monotonous 24/7 chatterboxes would tire of this narrative. In fact the only variant in the attacks these marketeers of conventional wisdom launched against a Republican with a populist appeal sufficient enough to who threatened to deprive liberal intellectuals of what they regard as their right to rule in perpetuity concerned Nixon. Too smart to be painted as stupid, is critics came up with an even better story line. He was the incarnation of evil.

Norman Podhoretz sees this sort of snobbery and class derision at work among some conservative intellectuals in their treatment of Sarah Palin. He cites and dismisses one of two possible explanations of this: that they are no better than their liberal colleagues, seek acceptance among the establishment, and hope to find it at Palin's expense. There is ample evidence to suggest he is correct-especially in the case of Palin's loudest critics on the right.

But what of the other possibility? Podhoretz concedes that "Palin is no Reagan." But might she become one? That is a question for Palin, through her actions as well as through her words, and not her critics to answer. Podhoretz is correct when he says that Palin shares Reagan's instincts and his love of country. But what about the rest?

Reagan, like the country he loved, was very much-even as president- a work in progress. While no intellectual, he was curious about how people, organizations and nations functioned and what made them the way they were. He always kept a book at close range and a pad by his side on which to record how he might best express complicated ideas in simple ways. Unlike bigger named actors, who let their tempers get the best of them on Hollywood sets, Reagan never walked away from a job he had signed on to do. Nor did he whine about the burdens of office or about barbs his critics cast his way in public-or as best as I can tell, in private.

There is much Reagan can still teach Palin. If she rises to the challenge, few will remember what intellectuals on either right or left said about her. That is indeed, as Norman reminds us, what happened with Reagan.

Nothing highlights the bankruptcy of conservative thought better than a defense of Sarah Palin. Her incoherent ‘it‘s all about me, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me isn’t part of Real America’ philosophy, lack of experience and disinterest in learning has none of Reagan’s bipartisanship or optimism and therefore doesn’t sell politically outside of a ‘too small to win elections’ base.

While Norman Podhoretz may sense disdain for Palin among conservatives, it’s only reflecting greater disdain from a much wider voting public. In February, 2010, the ABC/Washington Post poll noted that only 26 % of adults polled (and only 46% of Republicans) thought she was qualified to serve as President, and her favorabilities are in the 30’s. In other words, she’s neither popular nor qualified for higher office. Podhoretz dismisses her critics as ‘enemies on the left’, but judging by the polls, that includes so many of us that it must mean we are a center-left nation. Oh, wait...

President Obama got his groove back. With a major victory on healthcare reform win, he fortified his supporters and reinvigorated Democrats. When political opponents staged a tea party weekend with warlike rhetoric, the President literally elevated himself by flying to a real war zone to do his job as commander in chief: thank U.S. troops, press Karzai, and bolster our mission in Afghanistan.

This was a smart pivot from a healthcare reform law that emboldened Democrats to a battlefield visit in a war supported by a bi-partisan coalition, including many Republicans.

With the horrific Moscow subway bombings causing fear and mourning in Russia, we are again reminded that public safety is still job one.

Job creation is job two. The President has a stronger hand because he won and because nearly everybody in America hated the bailouts and wants to rein in the big banks.

Tea party activists and presidential wannabes who push to fire or impeach President Obama are missing the point: ultimately Presidents and Congressional majorities can't win by negatives alone. Republicans must know that denying consumer protections because you hate Democrats is a high-risk low-yield strategy. A positive main street jobs agenda is the way forward.

Reagan brought white Democrats home to the GOP and now Palin is on set to make sure they don't stray from home. Ronald Reagan captured the hearts and minds of the American electorate.

More specifically, he captured their hearts and American's minds followed. He was able to capture American hearts through the skills he developed over a career of performing and learning how to use emotion and speech choreography to connect with his audience. His Hollywood skills allowed him to poach a large chunk of white voters who were inspired by his message, but more so by the messenger.

Thirty years later, Sarah Palin comes to us with a similar skill set to that of Reagan. She may not have the formal theatrical experience but her performance skills are Oscar worthy. Palin's credentials may be slim, but her message delivery drives the heart to trump mental calculations.

Team Obama has lost the trust of over 50% of the nation, ruined any chance of true bipartisan reform of anything, and tainted the Administration with shades of Boss Tweed, as all Americans witnessed the incredible assortment of bribes, payola, and special deals that were required to produce a bad healthcare bill. Congress gave the President the "win" he desperately needed to keep his hitherto failed Administration afloat. But, unfortunately, that "win" came at the expense of the American taxpayer. As Congress goes home on recess they are sure to get a mouthful from angry constituents. Members with difficult races may turn to the President, hoping his coattails are enough to see them through the skirmish, and the White House might, incorrectly, assume it has a stronger hand to play with Congress. Only one thing seems clear: Dems who are running scared will look to Obama to save them and villains to blame for their own bad decisions.

Had the president and Democrats lost, then no one would believe that Obama is anything but weaker. Having won, he's stronger. Now the Administration should push for financial reform before the fall campaign is in a fever, hope the economy visibly mends some more before summer, and make plans right now to pivot toward the midterm campaign earlier than usual, sometime between Memorial Day and Independence Day.

With a plan like that, the White House is right to presume President Obama has a stronger hand with Congress. But no one should assume they'll play it well. And that should be one lesson from the health care victory. Republicans played their hands early and lost big. The president held his cards close, played every one of them (as Steve Steckler notes below) and won big. Winning begets winning. Even if the victory is a little ugly, as health care was. Still, Republicans are en route to gaining 20-some seats in the House, a half dozen or so in the Senate and among Governor's races. They have a lot of wind still at their backs.

But the White House is in better shape to blow Republicans off course than it would have been had it lost health care. In the end, it's not just health care alone that strengthens the White House: the stimulus bill is showing positive effects, passage of health care is the greatest piece of domestic legislation in generations and demonstrates to Democrats, no longer on the ropes, that it can work together as a diverse party, American troops are drawing down from Iraq, a new jobs report due out this week has early reports of 200,000 new jobs created, the most in three years, unemployment appears to have peaked, and Republicans are back in circular firing squad mode (and the national demographics continue to work against Republicans every single day because while its white base is energized it is also shrinking).

The President's bounce was short lived. The latest polling shows his job approval back equal to its low point before passage. And support for the health insurance bill, after spiking in the immediate aftermath to a +8 approval, is back into negative territory.

The President may find easier going because he is turning to easier subjects, such as demogoguing the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United (anyone inclined to criticize the Court on this, keep reminding yourself: the government was claiming the authority to ban books and movies! How is the Court's rejection of that authority remotely controversial?) But conspicuously absent from the President's new agenda is anything to do with creating jobs or addressing the debt. Why? Because these are harder questions and the administration is pretty much clueless on both points. Basically, the policy is to hope the natural resilience of the economy lowers unemployment a bit by October.

I don't think president Obama has squandered political capital; I think he gained it. Nothing like a victory, however achieved, to polish that image of a winner. And what did he give away on health insurance reform? Group after group caved on one issue or another, including the Catholic Church. A few favors for local politics, yes, but every major action carries some of those. Now the president has done what he promised. And now he has set the terms. Instead of reacting to others, they must react to him. He has shown that he is tenacious and willing to lead courageously, which heartens his supporters and puts his detractors on notice. The November Congressional elections have already been written off by the media as a defeat for Democrats, so if the president scores another major legislative victory and holds more seats for his party, he will out-perform expectations and have even more political capital for the remainder of this term.

More than a century ago Lord Bryce observed that, "In American politics, nothing succeeds like success". The schematic that the Obama White House is following is to sustain the initiative and put to rest the idea that the president is excessively cerebral and deferential and that the system is unworkable. This will certainly impress those in Congress who are habitually on the fence.

I believe that after the dust settles for Democrats after the health care marathon that by and large they are legislatively fatigued. The President may still be savoring the victory but, House and Senate Members up for re-election are worried and focused on November. I do not think it is wise for the President to be thinking about an aggressive “spring offensive” when many vulnerable Members are still licking their wounds over health care. The President and the leadership of the House and Senate should proceed with great caution legislatively. Taking on equally divisive issues now, will not be easy and will only come at a greater price for Democrats in the midterms.

The White House is right to presume the President now has a stronger hand to play with Congress. The taste of victory put together by one party, one big tent, has to embolden the Democrats. The campaign theme Yes We Can is real and they know it. They have some big issues left, but the anger is already out there. All they can do at this point is strengthen there base and prove Yes We Can. Every action adds to their strength, the interim appointments, discussion of student loans, immigration reform, financial action about wall street, a possible second Supreme Court Appointment. All of this and more, after health reform the Democrats are saying Yes We Can and the base is saying the same Yes We Can!!! The potential loses in November look smaller ans smaller.

The greater Obama's confidence in a strengthed hand, the more likely he is to overplay it. Winning health care on the last card played after being dealt a full House is likely to inspire more hubris than awe. I can hardly wait for the energy bill.

The president is in a stronger position to deal with Congress now that health care has passed. Enactment has freed the legislative agenda for other issues such as financial regulation. It will be harder for Republicans to oppose financial regulation than health care because members of the public recognize the need for enhanced regulation of financial institutions. If Republican Senators filibuster, Democrats will portray them as in bed with Wall Street banks.

Whether the White House poll numbers are up or down matters little. In the end, it will most likely be a foreign affairs crisis that will hobble the administration. Allies and adversaries see the President's foreign policy as increasingly ineffective. Signing a new arms control treaty is likely to make the White House look weaker not stronger. While the "road to zero" crowd will cheer, the reality is that the Russians are the big winners in this treaty...while the US sacrifices every strategic advantage, other than bolstering Obama's claim to the Nobel Prize. Since the president has refused to modernize the US nuclear arsenal; never pressed the Russians on verification issues (the Russians have been cheating on arms control for years); and opened the door to trading away missile defenses, the US nuclear deterrent looks weaker as the result of this agreement--while the Russians really give up nothing.

Sooner or later an enemy of America is going to try to take advantage of the US big time--the US will either snap back or slip further into decline...in either case the White House will look bad and all the poll numbers in the world won't salvage the President's prestige.

J.P. Hogan -Blogger- (guest)
CT:

On Friday's Washington Week, Gwen Ifill, moderator, called the Republicans "sore losers" after Healthcare Bill passing. It seems the Democrats were the real SORE LOSERS for passing healthcare with such questionable shenanigans as they did. Bipartisan support exists for many of 'reforms' now being touted as Dem only success and yet threatened by the hard partisan passing seeming with a direct and certain disregard for the expressed and measured will of 'majority' of Americans. Seems President Obama may have strengthened his "hand with Congress" but only with the Democrats and their obedience. Seems President Obama has strengthened the hands of Republicans and Independents with such a passing a questionable as the Constitutionality of the Bill itself, as Dems w/ President have expressly declared that they are trying to create a new Constitutional "right", and yet this is not the way new Constitutional RIGHTS become. The ambitions of Democrats, such, call for a Constitutional Convention or Amending. They have attempted passing a new "RIGHT" but with clear disregard of the expressed will and measured opinion of America against these specifics, passed so. Dems do seem the SORE LOSERS having acted so. see: www.jphogan.org/5722.

Kenneth Wills (guest)
TX:

The Podhoretz piece, I think, reflects what Frum has been writing in terms of who is now seen as being at the top of the power structure underlying the conservative "intelligensia." That is to say, it's Fox News and conservative talk radio that's leading the charge--which is what Frum has accurately portrayed. In all truth, however, it doesn't really matter. The problem isn't where the information comes from; rather, it's the integrity of their axioms--which, I'm sorry to say, are a lot like wet tissue paper lacking coherence and many times outright contradictory to other axioms. For example, it's contradictory to say you want to build a border fence and install more troops and equipment to stop the flow of migrants into the country while simultaneously saying you want to cut taxes. Similarly, it's delusional to say you don't want government to get between you and your doctor, but have no problem with the Supreme Court and Congress interfering in the Schaivo's affairs. You can't claim you want limited government except when it suits your purposes. Those are contradictory positions that defy simple logic. That's the problem with "conservative intelligensia."

Patrick Northway (guest)
IN:

Go for broke, baby! You've got NO guarantee you're gonna get a second term. Use it; milk it; work it. You got ONE shot at making this country a better place than you left it, so just run over the Republicans like a slug in the road. Not a bad metaphor for them, really. The Tea Party- THREE percent of the population. There is NO majority here.

Jon Davenport (guest)
TX:

I continue to giggle while folks like Dworkin think Palin is the person Conservatives want to represent her. With me and among my many like-minded family and friends, she wouldn't survive a primary contest against anyone save and except Nancy Pelosi. She is not a serious candidate for President among likely voters who tend to vote Republican or Conservative. But you lefties and Democrats keep attacking her like the Conservative Boogie man while we are voting and electing real candidates for the House, Senate and in 2012, President.

Gregory Toppe (guest)
CA:

The Obama Health Care Reform victory was eerily similar to his victory over Ms. Clinton in the primaries. A stunning and bold beginning followed by a brutal war of attrition whereby victory is ultimately obtained through superior gamesmanship. While the war of attrition with Clinton dulled his star's shine, it arguably better prepared him for the general election. It remains to be seen what the effects of the health care battle will be on the President or the Democrats but the Republicans would be well served to note this if they expect to win future legislative or election battles.

Steven Mann (guest)
NC:

Sarah Palin will be the bane of the Republican party, in that she will polarize its disparate interests and lead to its fractionalization. If you simply look at the demographic composition of the Republican party, we can easily see that it has become regionalized, aged, and limited by its own puritanical litmus tests. The Tea Party will simply split the Republican votes in districts where it fields candidates, enhancing Democratic individuals' chances. If the Republicans and the Neo-cons were smart, they would steal some of the Tea Party's ideas and make them their own. The trick, is to control the monster. If you let this Palin lady, and her penchant for populist stupidity, become the voice of a percentage of conservative America, you have lost the message and hence control. Republicans need to re-assess what it means to be a Republican IN THE 21ST CENTURY! The Neo-cons and other intelligent Republicans run the risk of losing control of both thier party and the Tea Party as well. Not that it is an enviable task, but the Republican party needs to find out who it is, emerge stronger, and shape the message. (I'm and Independent btw)

Mark Martin (guest)
NV:

When comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan, the one glaring difference is the fact that Ronald Reagan was a master communicator. One simply cannot say that about Sarah Palin, a woman who can't get from the subject to the object in a sentence without doing serious injury to herself.

Paul Metsa (guest)
MN:

One of the many differences between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is that Reagan saw fit to, and served out, both complete terms as governor. Paul Metsa (Musician) Mpls. MN

Justin in Los Angeles (guest)
CA:

Sarah Palin is an uneducated, jingoistic theocrat, and whether this idea escapes the AEI cafeteria or not, she is the GOP's Jesse Jackson: a powerful representative of a misguided interest group who sets her cause back by a decade or more, while driving her opponents to donate, volunteer and unite.

Anthony DiFatta (guest)
MS:

RE: Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto
Ms. DeFrancesco, Ronald Reagan brought mostly white DIxicrats to the Republican Party. It's no secret here in Mississippi, why we changed from Democrat to Republican. I was surprised that you put that in your remarks because Sarah Palin and the tea party folks seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Art Harman (guest)
VA:

Unreported news item: What goes around comes around. Moscow's support for terrorist states could be its own undoing. In fact, the atomic bombs Moscow is eagerly helping Iran build could one day, in the same or similar hands that planned this bombing, obliterate Moscow. Might be fitting justice for Putin, but not for the millions of Moscow residents. The same fate could befall Beijing for helping North Korea build their atom bombs. Supporting terrorists, hoping they can be trusted to only carry out their attacks on your enemies is very risky! Perhaps this will jar Putin into taking all possible measures to end Iran's atomic program before his nation might pay a terrifying price.

eric kluin (guest)
MA:

Of course Podhoretz likes Palin; a basic tenet of the neo-con manifesto is the necessity of an attractive frontman capable of guillessly spewing simplified,imflammatory rhetoric/propaganda to a malliable and presumptively stupid American public.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

As a conservative Republican woman, I must confess that I am not a fan of Sarah Palin. I don't become apoplectic at the mere mention of her name, as many liberals do, but I have a hard time taking her seriously. It's not any one thing. It may not even be a combination of things. It's just a gut feeling. There is something about her that makes me uneasy.

Mary Hannon (guest)
GA:

Dear Mr. Felzenberg,
Dorothy Parker was NOT married to Sinclair Lewis. You have the wrong Dorothy, her last name was Thompson. She was a journalist.. There was a book back in the sixties, "Dorothy and Red," about them. Look it up.

Josh Trutt (guest)
NY:

Is there anyone in the Obama administration that would take Brad Blakeman's advice on how to proceed? You can almost see him biting his nails as you read his post. Sorry, Brad, best buckle up for the ride.

Roy Hobbs (guest)
TX:

Someone once said you can tell who scares the opposition by the intensity of their attacks, so obviously the dems and blue blood republicans see her as a threat. I can't say that I consider her a serious presidential candidate, and I don't equate her with Reagan either. I like Palin because the right people hate her.

Lee Olyer (guest)
CA:

Greg Dworkin might want to be careful setting "favorability ratings in the 30's" as being a disqualifier for being President. Obama's favorables may be well below that come 2012. The more the establishment dismisses Sarah Palin, the higher those favorability ratings will climb. As long as we're looking at the polls... how are those white-male voter demographics looking these days?

Jilli Brown (guest)
TX:

"Are intellectual conservatives as dismissive of Sarah Palin as some liberals?"
If they're not, they should be. I would think her astounding lack of intellect would be an insult to intellectuals and any individuals with more than 2 live brain cells.
Do they really want to set the bar that low?

Sam Beser (guest)
MN:

Intellectual conservative... yeah... ok

James Briggs (guest)
NY:

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Podhoretz would prefer the rule of Sarah Palin, because she is another intellectual lightweight whom the Neo-cons (emphasis on the Con) could easily manipulate into believing that the solution to all that ails America is skillful application of military might. Of course, his true hope is that a President Palin would simply allow the Neo-cons to go around the globe waging wars with the enemies of Israel.
It took George W. Bush a full term plus to realize that the Neo-cons used him, fooled him into endorsing and executing their disastrous agenda, and then left him on the world stage as a carnival sideshow clown with shoes being thrown threw at his head.
Sarah Palin is the perfect subject for Mr. Podhoretz's next round of Puppet Master Global Power. She is wildly popular with the Tea Partiers masses, who like her are too dense to think past their conditional reflexes of Bible, Guns, Taxes and Abortions to understand that Neo-cons couldn't care less about the causes they hold dear. The real objective of the Neo-cons like Mr. Podhoretz is to ensure that the world is a safer place for Israel, even if it means killing thousands of Americans in the process.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.